dll927
Well-known
I've recently bought two Kievs - a 3 and a 4, that haven't arrived yet. When they do, I'll see about this business of buying from such a long distance. It is not critical that they be for picture-taking. I have enough cameras to start my own store!
Some questions about Zorkis:
1. How much faith can be put in the first two digits of serial numbers being the year of manufacture?
2. I get the impression the Jupiter-8 is a better lens than the Industar-22.
3. How does the idea of trying to acquire one of each - 1,2,3,4, sound?
4. Is Zorki a later incarnation of "Fed"?
I'm trying to read up on these, but would like some opinions.
Some questions about Zorkis:
1. How much faith can be put in the first two digits of serial numbers being the year of manufacture?
2. I get the impression the Jupiter-8 is a better lens than the Industar-22.
3. How does the idea of trying to acquire one of each - 1,2,3,4, sound?
4. Is Zorki a later incarnation of "Fed"?
I'm trying to read up on these, but would like some opinions.
mac_wt
Cameras are like bunnies
I'm no specialist, but from what i've learned in the past few months:
1. This seems to be true for Zorkis and Jupiter lenses (maybe also for later Feds? I have a relative new Fed 4 with a serial starting with 89)
2. No opinion here, except that I've learned that many regard a good example of Jupiter 8 as a very good lens.
3. Great Idea! Go for it!
But there's also the Zorki 5 and 6 and there are 3 types of Zorki 3 and 2 types of zorki 4 and then you just might have to buy al types of Feds...
4. The first Zorkis seem to have been inspired by the Feds. There are even some camera's with double markings (Fed/Zorki; they fetch a higher price on Ebay and are likely candidates for forgery). However, after these initial camera's, both companies went their own way and produced different types of camera's concurrently.
Regards, Wim.
1. This seems to be true for Zorkis and Jupiter lenses (maybe also for later Feds? I have a relative new Fed 4 with a serial starting with 89)
2. No opinion here, except that I've learned that many regard a good example of Jupiter 8 as a very good lens.
3. Great Idea! Go for it!
But there's also the Zorki 5 and 6 and there are 3 types of Zorki 3 and 2 types of zorki 4 and then you just might have to buy al types of Feds...4. The first Zorkis seem to have been inspired by the Feds. There are even some camera's with double markings (Fed/Zorki; they fetch a higher price on Ebay and are likely candidates for forgery). However, after these initial camera's, both companies went their own way and produced different types of camera's concurrently.
Regards, Wim.
1. True for Kiev stuff as well; I think it's a general truism for FSU gear.
3. Watch out for the addiction!
4. They were made in parallel; my impression from reading is that the Zorkis were intended for the international market.
3. Watch out for the addiction!
4. They were made in parallel; my impression from reading is that the Zorkis were intended for the international market.
doubs43
Well-known
1. Early FED's, AFAIK, abide by the first two digits = year of manufacture. My FED 1g was made in 1955 according to the serial number. Later FED's do not and my FED-5B cannot be dated by the serial number. When and at which model they made the change, I do not know. I find it odd that the serial number on my 5B is stamped on the bottom of the back which is removeable and could easily be swapped with another camera. It also has the "Best Quality" CCCP stamp but that's on the back of the top cover.
Kiev, Moscou, Zorki and others do follow the rule that the first two digits = the year of manufacture.
2. The Jupiter-8 can be an excellent lens and is likely superior to most I-22's as a general rule. Like all things FSU, quality can vary quite a bit.
3. As already pointed out, there are many more variations of the Zorki than just 4. Putting a complete collection together is an excellent idea and I hope you do.
4. The early FED-Zorki cameras were pretty much a FED made in a different factory by KMZ. KMZ was, however, independent of FED and soon all indications of FED involvement with the Zorki was dropped. In terms of quality, others with far more experience with FSU gear have described the FED as a camera for the masses and the Zorki for a higher-end market, including export. Top of the line supposedly goes to the Kiev.
Having gone into the interior of a FED-2a and a Zorki-4, I give the quality nod to the Zorki by quite a bit.
Of the Zorki models, I prefer the 4 (a 3M or 3-C might be nice too) because of the 1 sec. - 1/1000 shutter speeds. The camera feels solid and good in my hands. Some claim preference for the Zorki-6 because of the hinged back but the additional shutter speeds of the Zorki-4 more than compensate for any advantage the hinged back may have for me.
Walker
Kiev, Moscou, Zorki and others do follow the rule that the first two digits = the year of manufacture.
2. The Jupiter-8 can be an excellent lens and is likely superior to most I-22's as a general rule. Like all things FSU, quality can vary quite a bit.
3. As already pointed out, there are many more variations of the Zorki than just 4. Putting a complete collection together is an excellent idea and I hope you do.
4. The early FED-Zorki cameras were pretty much a FED made in a different factory by KMZ. KMZ was, however, independent of FED and soon all indications of FED involvement with the Zorki was dropped. In terms of quality, others with far more experience with FSU gear have described the FED as a camera for the masses and the Zorki for a higher-end market, including export. Top of the line supposedly goes to the Kiev.
Having gone into the interior of a FED-2a and a Zorki-4, I give the quality nod to the Zorki by quite a bit.
Of the Zorki models, I prefer the 4 (a 3M or 3-C might be nice too) because of the 1 sec. - 1/1000 shutter speeds. The camera feels solid and good in my hands. Some claim preference for the Zorki-6 because of the hinged back but the additional shutter speeds of the Zorki-4 more than compensate for any advantage the hinged back may have for me.
Walker